A reader asks: Why is Linux still not as user friendly as the two other main OSes with all the people developing for Linux? Is it because it is mainly developed by geeks?
My initial feeling when reading this question was that it was kind of a throwaway, kind of a slam in disguise as a genuine question. But the more I thought about it, the more intrigued I felt. There truly are a large amount of resources being dedicated to the development of Linux and its operating system halo (DEs, drivers, apps, etc). Some of these resources are from large companies (IBM, Red Hat, Novell). Why isn't Linux more user-friendly? Is this an inherent limitation with open source software?

What is not logical about that? Just because you have not bothered to take the 30 minutes or so, that it would take to read up on and gain a good understanding of the Linux File Hierarchy Standard? If they put the binaries in boot, mounted removable media to bin and the bootloader files in mnt - I might see why that is not logical.

installing a program in linux is a guessing game as to where the files actually went.

Yes, because 'rpm -ql <packagename>' or 'dpkg -L <packagename>' is so very difficult - compared to a Windows installer which provides no straightforward means to find out what files it has placed on your harddisk.

The Linux File Hierarchy Standard and package management tools may not be obvious to use, they may not even be 'easy to use at first'. That does not mean they are not easy to use, nor does it mean they are not user friendly.